Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Remembering 9/11

Being rather hermited in western Minnesota, I haven't heard anything of 9/11 today. In fact, while I had been thinking about doing a 9/11 post about 2 days ago, it wasn't until I read Poodles' blog mentioning it that I actually thought of it today. That has more to do with my incredibly odd schedule. I am forever misplacing days of the week and not knowing for sure if yesterday was Monday or Thursday.

9/11 is one of those days that gets burned into your memory rather deeply. When I first got an inkling that something was wrong, I was taking a 10 minute break from schooling the kids and called my Mom at work. She was surprised to hear from me and asked if I was watching the news. I said, "No, Mom it's the middle of our school day, why would I have the tv on?" She said, "Don't you know?" "Know what?" "We've been bombed. I've got to go, just watch the news."

wtf??? Who's been bombed? Who would bomb Montana? Or maybe the telephone cooperative she was working part time for?

So I flipped the tv on and there was Dan Rather with two smoking buildings behind him. Holy shit the twin towers!!!! It was like some twisted scene out of that goofy movie from the late 70's Towering Inferno.

I sat in the corner of the couch with my arms wrapped around my knees and stared in disbelief at the tv for the rest of the morning. I was completely shocked and couldn't believe what I was seeing. And then the buildings came down one after the other.

I was fairly certain the world as I knew it would never be the same again.

The more I've learned about that tragic day, the more I am convinced that the world was never quite what I thought it was.

9/11. For all the innocents who died that day- you are not forgotten.

2 comments:

Richard said...

Fiery said, "For all the innocents who died that day- you are not forgotten."

9/11 is also important to me, a Canadian. Long live America!

Unfortunately, I am deeply saddened at the way Americans have dealt with it; not just with the G.W.Bush Administration, but with far too many American citizens as well.

Here is why.

Suppose a Canadian entered America and murdered a family, and then retreated to Canada. Canada would arrest him as surely as if he had murdered a Canadian family. The legal system would either prosecute and convict him in Canada, or agree to have him extradited to America for a trial there.

The Canadian government represents the Canadian people as a whole, and is a function of their moral and political beliefs. What does it mean if the Canadian government refused to arrest him? It, as the voice of Canadians, would be tacitly approving the murder of Americans!

It is the duty of a rational government to defend its citizens from attack, whether from other citizens or from foreign sources. How should America respond?

It should immediately address the Canadian people (government) requesting their cooperation in arresting the murderer as a criminal, pointing out that if they purposefully provide him safety that their nation approves of an act of war against Americans. No American citizen's murder should be so unimportant to America(!) that it should be overlooked for diplomatic reasons.

At this point *severe* sanctions ought to be imposed, with the ultimatum that a second such act will result in the immediate unannounced destruction of Canadian military and government targets. And that attack should be sufficient to eliminate any though of a Canadian retaliation.

Civilian deaths of Canadians will be on the hands of those Canadians who chose to allow a killer of Americans to be treated as a respected citizen.

Consider this, all men of Switzerland are required to undergo a year of military training, and to keep their guns and uniforms available should they be needed. There zero break and entry robberies in Switzerland. America need only act with shocking force once, and it may never have to do it again.

Instead, the US Administration has foolishly put up with the deaths of thousands of Americans before 9/11, and has thwarted 99% of an average of 250 terrorist attacks a year by citizens of various Arabic countries.

Saddam Hussein gave $25,000US to the family of any terrorist who died in attacking America. It is known that he supported an Al Qaeda training ground, provided them with equipment. He did have WMDs and there is clear evidence that he stalled for enough time to truck everything into Syria.

The only proper response for America, to terrorists' acts, is to go after the governments that protect and support them. To go after the terrorists would be like picking stray leaf cutter ants from one's garden plants. The ants keeps coming as long as the anthill remains untouched.

Now America has many anthills that must be destroyed: the governments of Afghanistan, Iraq (for tactical reasons), Iran. (Syria and Saudi Arabia probably should be in there too.) The governments and military of each should virtually obliterated in a few days of surprise bombing, without a single American foot touching ground. American lives in this context are more important than the lives of those around the bombing targets.

Even when a nation's citizens are ruled by a murderous dictator and his army, it would be quite proper for the US to destroy government and military property, even if it means the deaths of some citizens. The honest citizen in the split second before he dies from an American bomb should think, "thank goodness my family and friends will no longer have to live under this madman." Any civilian who says instead, "Damn those Americans", deserves to die as a supporter of his murderous government.

This is the approach that Clinton (with USS Cole)and Carter (with the hostage taking) should have taken.
It should have been a true shock and awe. Then the Bushes may never have had to 'venture' into the Middle East to lose more American lives.

Once done, the World should be notified that America will repeat the process so long as any country fails to view terrorist citizens as nothing more than cheap murderers, does not help to arrest them or actually provides them with shelter.

America is under no obligation to set up a "democracy" (which is nothing more than government by tyranny with majority approval)or any other convenience for the people of the targeted nations. That choice is up to them... but if they allow the terrorist thing again, they will be flattened again.

If Clinton or Carter had done that at the right time, the twin towers would still be standing and the name Osama bin Laden would only be known to his immediate family and friends.

Now, G.W.Bush is worse than either Clinton or Carter, because he has responded in a way that 1) has lead to the deaths of more American soldiers than Americans were killed in the Twin Towers, 2) has killed more civilians than would have died if he had done as described above, 3) cost the American taxpayer a fortune, and worst of all 4)he has given the terrorists and their supporting nations reason to believe their insane behavior may actually succeed. (Neither Gore nor Kerry would have done any better, and it is doubtful that Hilary or Giuliani will either.)

If America withdraws the deaths of Americans fighting the terrorists (instead of the sponsor nations)since 9/11 will be in vain because America has prosecuted the war in all the wrong ways and will suffer a moral defeat in spite of having a military that is a hundred or more times as powerful than all the terror nations put together.

Really, the forgoing is the only thing left, and it should be aimed at Iran with more deadly impact than anything Iraq has seen. If there are civilian areas with an abundance of terror supporters, they too should be targeted.

I feel sad for the Founders. As Franklin said of the new American government, "It's a Republic, if you can keep it."

Tommy said...

Having been in NYC on 9/11 and knowing some of the people who died that day, I did a series of posts to mark the anniversary.